Before this Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 which seeks to annul and set aside the resolution dated May 7, 2001 of the
Commission on Elections as well as the resolution dated May 12, 2001 denying petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration.

This petition originated from a case filed by private respondent
on March 21, 2001 for the disqualification of petitioner Nestor Magno as
mayoralty candidate of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija during the May 14, 2001 elections
on the ground that petitioner was previously convicted by the Sandiganbayan of
four counts of direct bribery penalized under Article 210 of the Revised Penal
Code.It appears that on July 25, 1995,
petitioner was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 3 months and 11
days of arresto mayor as minimum to 1
year 8 months and 21 days of prision
correccional as maximum, for each of the four counts of direct
bribery.Thereafter, petitioner applied
for probation and was discharged on March 5, 1998 upon order of the Regional
Trial Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija.

On May 7, 2001, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) rendered a
decision granting the petition of private respondent and declaring that petitioner
was disqualified from running for the position of mayor in the May 14, 2001
elections.In ruling against
petitioner, the COMELEC cited Section 12 of the BP 881 or the Omnibus Election
Code which provides as follows:

Sec. 12. Disqualifications. – Any person who has been declared by
competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final
judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or for any offense for
which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen (18) months, or
for a crime involving moral turpitude,
shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has
been given plenary pardon, or granted amnesty.

The disqualifications to be a
candidate herein provided shall be deemed removed upon the declaration by
competent authority that said insanity or incompetence had been removed or
after the expiration of a period of five years from his service of sentence, unless within the same period he again
becomes disqualified.

The above provision explicitly lifts the disqualification to run
for an elective office of a person convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude after five (5) years from the service of sentence.According to the COMELEC, inasmuch as petitioner
was considered to have completed the service of his sentence on March 5, 1998,
his five-year disqualification will end only on March 5, 2003.

On May 10, 2001, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration
but the same was denied by the COMELEC in its resolution dated May 12, 2001.

Hence, this petition.

Petitioner argues that direct bribery is not a crime involving
moral turpitude.Likewise, he cites
Section 40 of RA 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991,
which he claims is the law applicable to the case at bar, not BP 881 or the
Omnibus Election Code as claimed by the COMELEC.Said provision reads:

Section 40.
Disqualifications. -The following
persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position:

(a) Those sentenced by final
judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable
by one (1) year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years after serving
sentence.

xxxx

Petitioner insists that he had already served his sentence as of
March 5, 1998 when he was discharged from probation.Such being the case, the two-year disqualification period imposed
by Section 40 of the Local Government Code expired on March 5, 2000.Thus, petitioner was qualified to run in the
2001 elections.

Meanwhile, Sonia Lorenzo was proclaimed by the COMELEC as the
duly elected mayor of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija.Thus, on June 19, 2001, petitioner filed a supplemental petition which
this Court merely noted in its resolution dated June 26, 2001.In his supplemental petition, petitioner
assailed the proclamation of Sonia Lorenzo on the ground that the propriety of
his disqualification was still under review by this Court.Petitioner likewise asked this Court to
declare him as the duly elected municipal mayor instead of Sonia Lorenzo.

On July 18, 2001, the Solicitor-General filed his manifestation
and agreed with petitioner that COMELEC should have applied Section 40 of the
Local Government Code.

The main issue is whether or not petitioner was disqualified to
run for mayor in the 2001 elections.In
resolving this, two sub-issues need to be threshed out, namely: (1) whether the
crime of direct bribery involves moral turpitude and (2) whether it is the
Omnibus Election Code or the Local Government Code that should apply in this
situation.

Regarding the first sub-issue, the Court has consistently adopted
the definition in Black’s Law Dictionary of ‘moral turpitude’ as:

“x x x an act of baseness,
vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men,
or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right
and duty between man and woman or conduct contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty, or good morals.”[1]

Not every criminal act, however, involves moral turpitude.It frequently depends on the circumstances
surrounding the violation of the law.[2]

In this case, we need not review the facts and circumstances
relating to the commission of the crime considering that petitioner did not
assail his conviction.By applying for
probation, petitioner in effect admitted all the elements of the crime of
direct bribery:

1. the offender is a public
officer;

2. the offender accepts an
offer or promise or receives a gift or present by himself or through another;

3. such offer or promise be accepted or gift or present be
received by the public officer with a view to committing some crime, or in
consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime but
the act must be unjust, or to refrain from doing something which it is his
official duty to do; and [Italics supplied]

4. the act which the
offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with the
performance of his official duties.[3]

Moral turpitude can be inferred from the third element.The fact that the offender agrees to accept
a promise or gift and deliberately commits an unjust act or refrains from
performing an official duty in exchange for some favors, denotes a malicious
intent on the part of the offender to renege on the duties which he owes his
fellowmen and society in general.Also,
the fact that the offender takes advantage of his office and position is a
betrayal of the trust reposed on him by the public.It is a conduct clearly contrary to the accepted rules of right
and duty, justice, honesty and good morals.In all respects, direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude.

It is the second sub-issue which is problematical.There appears to be a glaring
incompatibility between the five-year disqualification period provided in
Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code and the two-year disqualification
period in Section 40 of the Local Government Code.

It should be noted that the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881) was
approved on December 3, 1985 while the Local Government Code (RA 7160) took
effect on January 1, 1992.It is basic
in statutory construction that in case of irreconcilable conflict between two
laws, the later enactment must prevail, beingthe more recent expression of legislative will.[4]Legis posteriores priores contrarias
abrogant.In enacting the later
law, the legislature is presumed to have knowledge of the older law and
intended to change it.Furthermore, the
repealing clause of Section 534 of RA 7160 or the Local Government Code states
that:

(f) All general and special
laws, acts, city charters, decrees, executive orders, proclamations and
administrative regulations, or part or parts thereof which are inconsistent
with any provisions of this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

In accordance therewith, Section 40 of RA
7160 is deemed to have repealed Section 12 of BP 881.Furthermore, Article 7 of the Civil Code provides that laws are
repealed only by subsequent ones, and not the other way around.When a subsequent law entirely encompasses
the subject matter of the former enactment, the latter is deemed repealed.

In David vs. COMELEC[5],
we declared that RA 7160 is a codified set of laws that specifically applies to
local government units.Section 40
thereof specially and definitively provides for disqualifications of candidates
for elective local positions.It is applicable to them only.On the other hand, Section 12 of BP 881
speaks of disqualifications of candidates for any public office.It deals
with the election of all public officers.Thus, Section 40 of RA 7160, insofar as it
governs the disqualifications of candidates for local positions, assumes the
nature of a special law which ought to prevail.

The intent of the legislature to reduce the disqualification
period of candidates for local positions from five to two years is
evident.The cardinal rule in the
interpretation of all laws is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the
law.[6]
The reduction of the disqualification period from five to two years is the
manifest intent.

Therefore, although his crime of direct bribery involved moral
turpitude, petitioner nonetheless could not be disqualified from running in the
2001 elections.Article 12 of the
Omnibus Election Code (BP 881) must yield to Article 40 of the Local Government
Code (RA 7160).Petitioner’s
disqualification ceased as of March 5, 2000 and he was therefore under no such
disqualification anymore when he ran for mayor of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija in
the May 14, 2001 elections.

Unfortunately, however, neither this Court nor this case is the
proper forum to rule on (1) the validity of Sonia Lorenzo’s proclamation and
(2) the declaration of petitioner as the rightful winner.Inasmuch as Sonia Lorenzo had already been
proclaimed as the winning candidate, the legal remedy of petitioner would have
been a timely election protest.

WHEREFORE, the instant
petition is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED.The challenged resolutions of the Commission on Elections dated May 7,
2001 and May 12, 2001 are hereby reversed and set aside.The petitioner’s prayer in his supplemental
petition for his proclamation as the winner in the May 14, 2001 mayoralty
elections in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, not being within our jurisdiction, is
hereby denied.